Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 539 (JK)

State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sukhvir Singh

2022-09-30

RAJESH SEKHRI, RAJNESH OSWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT Per Oswal-J. - The present acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 21.10.2010 passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) in case titled 'State of J&K Vs. Sukhvir Singh alias Babu' whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC in FIR No. 30/2004 registered with Police Station, Miran Sahib. 2. The appeal has been filed on the ground that there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent, but the learned trial court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case, which has resulted in un-warranted acquittal of the respondent. 3. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the PW1-Gurmeet Singh and PW2-Gursharan Kour have categorically stated that it was the respondent who had killed their mother, but despite that the learned trial court acquitted the respondent. He further argued that the weapon of offence was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the respondent and as such, there was abundant evidence on record to convict the respondent, but the learned trial court has fallen in error of fact as well as law while acquitting the respondent. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ved Raj Wazir, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there are various infirmities in the evidence led by the prosecution and only the interested witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove the case against the respondent, despite availability of the independent witnesses. He further argued that the offence was allegedly committed between 10/11 PM and the respondent has categorically proved that he was suffering from nightblindness and further that PW 1-Gurmeet Singh was also kept in Police custody in connection with the case, as admitted by his real sister i.e. PW 2-Gursharan Kour. He further argued that there was no light on the place of occurrence and the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased were sent to the FSL after inordinate delay and no reason has been furnished by the Investigating Officer for such delay. 5. Heard and perused the record of the trial court. 6. He further argued that there was no light on the place of occurrence and the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased were sent to the FSL after inordinate delay and no reason has been furnished by the Investigating Officer for such delay. 5. Heard and perused the record of the trial court. 6. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, as they emanate from the charge-sheet are that an information was received at Police Station on 28.04.2004 at around 11.30 P.M. from a reliable source that at about 10/11 P.M. one unknown person entered the house of Jeet Kour-deceased, who was sitting on her bed in her room. She was assaulted by the said person with a sharp edged weapon and her dead body was lying there. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 30/2004 was registered and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer took the custody of the dead body and photographs of the dead body were also taken. The Investigating Officer seized the plain clay and the blood stained clay and sealed the same. From the fist of the deceased hair strands were found, which were also seized. The Investigating Officer also took the samples of the blood stains from gate with white cloth for chemical examination. The statements of PWs-Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour were recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted in Govt. Hospital R. S. Pura and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her legal heirs for performing the last rites. The accused was arrested and in custody he made the disclosure statement regarding the weapon of offence and also the clothes. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the weapon of offence and his clothes were recovered. Hair strands of the accused were also taken and were sent to FSL for examination. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proved the offences under Section 302 and 452 RPC against the respondent and laid the charge-sheet before the concerned Magistrate. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu who transferred the same to the learned trial court. Charges for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 were framed against the respondent on 07.12.2004 and as the respondent did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was committed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu who transferred the same to the learned trial court. Charges for commission of offences under Section 302 and 452 were framed against the respondent on 07.12.2004 and as the respondent did not plead guilty, so the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution had cited as many as 21 witnesses, out of which the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and the respondent also led evidence in order to prove that he was suffering from night-blindness and he examined 5 witnesses in his defence. 7. As this court is dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the acquittal recorded by the trial court, it is apt to examine the scope of interference with judgment of acquittal. In N. Vijayakumar vs. State of T.N., (2021) 3 SCC 687 , Apex Court has held as under: 20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a 'possible view', having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.' 21. Further in the judgment in Murugesan [Murugesan v. State, (2012) 10 SCC 383 ] relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment, it is categorically held by this Court that only in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of 'possible view' to 'erroneous view' or 'wrong view' is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a 'possible view', the High Court not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. 8. Now, in order to examine whether the acquittal of the respondent was justified or not, being a plausible or possible view, it is proper to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the evidence led by the prosecution. 9. PW-Gurmeet Singh is the son of the deceased. He has stated that the respondent was resident of his mohalla. Now, in order to examine whether the acquittal of the respondent was justified or not, being a plausible or possible view, it is proper to have a brief resume of the relevant portion of the evidence led by the prosecution. 9. PW-Gurmeet Singh is the son of the deceased. He has stated that the respondent was resident of his mohalla. His mother used to stay all alone in the house and used to tell him that the accused comes to her house and steals money from the house and also abuses her. He asked the accused not to do such things, but the accused told him to do whatever he wants to do. On 28.04.2004, he and his sister had gone in the Mehandi ceremony of his friend Ramneek Singh S/o Surinder Singh. Their mother had also come to attend the function. Mother took her meals and between 10 to 11 PM, she went back to her house. After some time, his sister went to their parental house. He also went to his house. After few minutes, when he reached at the main gate of the house, he found that the accused was coming out with a Kirpan in his hands. He heard the cries of his sister. He straightway went to the lobby room and found his mother stained with blood in the lobby room. The blood was oozing out from her neck and belly and she was dead. Gursharan Kour told him that when she entered the house, the accused was causing injuries to the mother. The accused then ran away and thereafter both of them started crying and people who had come to attend the marriage party also came on spot. The Police was informed. The Police took the dead body in custody. Seizure memo with regard to the plain clay and blood stained clay were prepared. The deceased was having few hair strands in her fist, which might have been of the accused and they were also seized vide seizure memo (ExPW-GS3) and they were kept in the match box. The Police also seized the hair strands of the deceased and kept the same in the match box wide seizure memo (ExPW-GS4). Blood samples were also extracted from the gate and they were also seized. His statement was recorded. The Police also seized the hair strands of the deceased and kept the same in the match box wide seizure memo (ExPW-GS4). Blood samples were also extracted from the gate and they were also seized. His statement was recorded. He has further stated that on 02.05.2004, the Police arrested the accused and during the course of investigation, the accused admitted that the clothes and kirpan had been kept by him in his plot at Tali Morh under heap of clay. His statement was recorded which was signed by the accused. He and Inderjeet Singh also signed the statement. He proved the disclosure memo (ExPW-GS10). The Police took them to the plot, where the accused had kept kirpan and clothes. The accused dug the earth and recovered a plastic bag containing clothes and the kirpan. Photographs were taken of the accused while digging and recovering the clothes and the kirpan. The seizure memo of the weapon of offence-Kirpan and clothes of the accused (ExPW-GS11) was prepared and it bears his signatures as well as signatures of Inderjeet Singh. During cross examination, he stated that he did not lodge report with the Police Station. The Police came on hearing about the murder. When he cried, number of people came on spot. When accused was running out, he was at the gate of the house, but he did not try to catch the accused. He never lodged any report in the Police Station that the accused has stolen money from his house. He simply told the accused about this once. The accused is his neighbour. He does not know that the accused had eye problem. No blood was there on the clothes of his sister. He never made any attempt to lift his mother, who was bleeding on the bed. Beddings and the bed sheet were also blood stained but the Police did not seize the same. The accused was also in the marriage party and he does not know when he left the party. There were 15-20 Police personnel at safe house and it was guarded by a guard. The accused was being interrogated. There were blood stains on the kirpan. ASI-Kuldip Singh was interrogating and rest of the Police personnel were standing. The plot from which the Kirpan was recovered is open, no boundary wall is there around the plot and was accessible to everyone. 10. The accused was being interrogated. There were blood stains on the kirpan. ASI-Kuldip Singh was interrogating and rest of the Police personnel were standing. The plot from which the Kirpan was recovered is open, no boundary wall is there around the plot and was accessible to everyone. 10. PW-Gursharan Kour is the daughter of the deceased. She stated that the accused is known to her. On 28.04.2004, at about 10/11.00 PM her mother came from marriage ceremony of Ramneek Singh to her house and she came at 11.15 PM. When she was near the gate, she heard noise 'Maar Dia .....Maar Dia' and when she entered the lobby, she found that the accused was hitting her mother with Kirpan. On seeing her, the accused ran away. Her brother also came on spot but by that time her mother had died. Other people who had come to attend the marriage party also came there. People from mohalla informed the Police on telephone and the Police reached on spot. The Police recorded her statement as well as the statement of her brother. Accused used to steal money of her mother and mother disclosed about this fact to her. In cross-examination, she stated that she had no relation with the accused, but the accused is their neighbour. Two months earlier her mother told her about the theft committed by the accused. She does not remember about the month, date and day of the theft. She also does not know how much money was stolen by the accused. No report was lodged against the accused for committing the theft in the Police Station. On the day of occurrence, the accused had not committed any theft. Her other sisters were also invited in the marriage and their husbands also participated in the marriage. She returned from the marriage party 5 minutes earlier to her brother. Her mother was lying on the cot and the accused was standing near her and was inflicting injuries upon her stomach. She was shocked. The accused pushed her and ran away. She ran after the accused even outside the gate, however, the accused ran away. Her brother also ran after the accused but the accused ran away. Her brother was also interrogated for 10 days and was released thereafter. For release of Gurmeet Singh from the Police custody, they resorted to road blockade and even took processions against the Police. She ran after the accused even outside the gate, however, the accused ran away. Her brother also ran after the accused but the accused ran away. Her brother was also interrogated for 10 days and was released thereafter. For release of Gurmeet Singh from the Police custody, they resorted to road blockade and even took processions against the Police. The Police interrogated her brother, as the other party had bribed the Police. It is incorrect that they got the earlier Investigating Officer changed and got that investigation entrusted to Kuldip Singh, who is in their relation. It is also incorrect that the relations between her mother and Gurmeet Singh were strained. When she was confronted with the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. it was found that she had not stated to the Police that the accused pushed her and ran away and it was also not deposed that the moment she entered the room, the accused ran away. 11. PW Manjeet Singh S/O Kirpal Singh is the son-in-law of the deceased-Jeet Kour. He is a witness to the seizure memo of the dead body and also to the seizure memo of the plain clay, blood stained clay and also to the seizure memo of the hair strands seized from the right hand of the deceased. He proved the seizure memos. He also proved the seizure memo of the blood extracted from the door by white cloth. He also proved the seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased. He further stated that on 02.05.2004 the accused was arrested and was handcuffed. The accused accompanied the Police to the plinth where the accused removed the soil from the plinth and took out a polythene bag from there, which contained the blood stained clothes of the accused and a kirpan which was handed over to the Police. The Police prepared the seizure memo, which bears his signatures. On 11.05.2004 the accused was at Police Station. ASI-Kuldip Singh removed some of the hair strands from the head of the accused and prepared the seizure memo (ExPW-MS). It was also signed by Inderjeet Singh. On 12.05.2004 the doctor took sample of the blood of the accused and a seizure memo was prepared. The ring used for the purpose of sealing the blood sample was kept on his supurdnama. In cross-examination he stated that he does not know Urdu. It was also signed by Inderjeet Singh. On 12.05.2004 the doctor took sample of the blood of the accused and a seizure memo was prepared. The ring used for the purpose of sealing the blood sample was kept on his supurdnama. In cross-examination he stated that he does not know Urdu. There was no particular mark on the ring which can reveal that the ring produced by him was the same ring which was given to him by the ASI-Kuldip Singh. The Police got his signatures on 3 pages. He does not know who called Inderjeet Singh. Supurdnama of the ring was prepared by the Police at the place of recovery. Kirpan which has been shown to him in the Court is a common kirpan which is generally kept by the followers of Sikh Religion. He does not know, who is the owner of the plot. Around the plot there are number of houses of people, but he does not know their names. At the time of recovery, number of residents of the surrounding mohalla were there and they were about 30-35 in number. ASI-Kuldip Singh got the signatures of two witnesses on the seizure memo namely Inderjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh, who are residents of same mohalla. Gurmeet Singh was also arrested by the Police and remained in the lock up for 2 days and thereafter he was kept in the hospital under the custody of the Police. 12. PW-Jagjit Singh is also the son-in-law of the deceased. He is a witness to the supurdnama of the ring. Ring was kept on supurdnama of Gurmeet Singh vide ExPW-GS6. In cross-examination, he stated that his brother-in-law Gurmeet Singh was arrested by the Police in connection with the death of his motherin-law. He remained in the lock up and people went to higher officials of the Police and resorted to processions and road blockade for his release. 13. PW-Ranjit Singh stated that he took the photographs, 4 in number, on the place of occurrence-where the deceased was found murdered. He was also the photographer in the marriage ceremony of Ramneek Singh. In cross-examination he stated that these photographs do not bear his signatures. 14. PW-Ranbir Singh is a witness to the receipt of dead body prepared by the Police at the time of delivery of the dead body. 15. PW-Subash Chander is the Patwari. He was also the photographer in the marriage ceremony of Ramneek Singh. In cross-examination he stated that these photographs do not bear his signatures. 14. PW-Ranbir Singh is a witness to the receipt of dead body prepared by the Police at the time of delivery of the dead body. 15. PW-Subash Chander is the Patwari. He stated that he prepared the site plan and the same bears his signatures. The site plan was prepared at the request and nishan-dehi of the Police, that too on the directions of the Naib Tehsildar. The site plan is marked as ExPW-SC. In crossexamination he stated that the Police identified the place of occurrence. 16. PW-Dr. Jugal Kishore Gupta is the Chief Medical Officer. He proved the seizure memo of the blood of the accused (ExPW-JK). In crossexamination he stated that he cannot identify the accused because lot of time has elapsed since then. 17. PW-Manjeet Singh S/o Sewa Singh is a witness to the seizure memo of the sample of blood of the accused (ExPW-JK). In cross-examination he stated that he does not know the accused personally, however, the accused is the resident of his village. His father's name is Jagdev Singh. 18. PW-Agya Ram is a witness to the supurdnama of the ring that was kept on supurdnama of Satvir Singh. He proved the supurdnama (ExPWAS). 19. PW-Gopal Dass stated that on 02.05.2004 he was posted in photo section of Crime Branch, Jammu. Ten photos attached with the court file were taken by him on the directions of the SHO, Miran Sahib. In cross-examination, he stated that at about 8.30 AM he went to take the photographs. He directly went to the Police Station and went with the Police Party. The whole process was completed by 10.30 AM. In addition to Police, civilians were also present on spot, however, the Police had not kept any civilian as witness. Accused himself was affecting the recovery. 20. PW-Rajiv Magotra stated that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar in Miran Sahib in the month of April, 2004. On 08.05.2004 Police produced 8 packets for re-sealing. He resealed them and issued a resealing certificate. The certificate is marked as EXPW-RM. Authority letter to the FSL is in his hand writing and is correct and the same is marked as EXPW-RM1. On 08.05.2004 Police produced 8 packets for re-sealing. He resealed them and issued a resealing certificate. The certificate is marked as EXPW-RM. Authority letter to the FSL is in his hand writing and is correct and the same is marked as EXPW-RM1. In cross-examination, he stated that on EXPWRM the impression of the seal is Photostat impression and not the real one. Certificate was written by the Investigating Officer. He never opened the packets. Whatever the Investigating Officer told him, he issued the certificate. 21. PW-Ramneek Singh S/o Surinder Singh has simply stated that on 28.04.2004, mehandi ceremony was organised. At about 11/11.15 PM there was hue and cry and people from the mehandi ceremony went to the house of Gurmeet Singh. In cross-examination, he stated he has heard that the accused cannot see in the evening. 22. PW-Mushtaq Bhat-Scientific Expert stated that on 01.06.2004 he received 11 sealed packets enclosed within Khaddar cloth marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K from Assistant Director, FSL, Jammu for examination and report. He conducted the tests and submitted his report. He proved the report marked as ExPW-MA. In crossexamination, he stated that the exhibits which he received from the Investigating Officer were containing the description of the alleged blood stains. Immediately after 24 hours the colour of blood changes and it turns brown. After a passage of time, the colour of the blood looks like blackish. He has not mentioned the size of the blood stains. He does not know whether the hair strands were cut with sharp edged instrument or pulled out. Hair strands contained in exhibit 666 were in equal length with hair strands of exhibit of 656. Both samples of hair strands were pulled as roots of the hair were intact. 23. PW-Kuldip Singh stated that investigation of the FIR No. 30/2004 was entrusted to him. After registering the FIR, he went on spot and found the dead body of the deceased lying in the lobby. He recorded the statements of Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour under Section 161 Cr. P.C. As per the statements, offence against the accused was proved. He took the dead body in custody. He prepared the seizure memos. Kirpan was also recovered at the instance of the accused. He prepared the disclosure memo, seizure memo and also the site plan. He recorded the statements of Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour under Section 161 Cr. P.C. As per the statements, offence against the accused was proved. He took the dead body in custody. He prepared the seizure memos. Kirpan was also recovered at the instance of the accused. He prepared the disclosure memo, seizure memo and also the site plan. In crossexamination, he stated that all the proceedings in the challan have been written by some other person and he has simply signed them. He denied having arrested the son of the deceased in connection with the murder. He never put the son of the deceased in the SMGS Hospital. House of Devinder Singh and Manohar Singh are near to the house of the deceased, but none of them has been kept as witness. None out of the surroundings, where the occurrence had taken place, had been kept as witness. He knew the accused prior to the occurrence, but he does not know whether the accused had any eye-sight problem. He was again cross examined on 22.12.2009 and he stated that there was light in the lobby, however, it has neither been mentioned nor shown in the site plan. The dead body of the deceased was lying on Takhatposh, but the same has not been shown in the site plan. Also, the dead body has not been shown in the site plan. Neither was there any bed sheet on the Takhatposh nor was there any blood on the Takhatposh. The samples were taken in the evening on the day of occurrence, but were sent to FSL on 10.05.2004, after getting them resealed on 08.05.2004. He further stated that the statement made by PW-Gursharan Kour that her brother was arrested in connection with the FIR is incorrect. The samples remained in Malkhana of the Police upto the date of re-sealing. 24. PW-Dr. Balkar Chowdhary proved the post mortem report of the deceased marked as ExPW-BC and as per his opinion cause of death of the deceased was due to excessive haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. The injury No. 6 out of all 15 injuries could singularly even cause the death. The certificate regarding the weapon of offence (ExPW-BC1) was proved by him and he also identified the weapon of offence. The injury No. 6 out of all 15 injuries could singularly even cause the death. The certificate regarding the weapon of offence (ExPW-BC1) was proved by him and he also identified the weapon of offence. In cross-examination he stated that history of the deceased was mentioned on the basis of information supplied by the attendants of the deceased and by the Police. He had not prepared any sketch of the weapon of offence. 25. The respondent has examined DWs-Manpreet Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh. All of them have stated that the accused is suffering from night-blindness. 26. The respondent has also examined DW-Ashok Kumar Sharma, Lecturer Department of Ophthalmology, Govt. Medical College, Jammu. He has stated that 'Night Blindness' is a degenerative eye disease that usually affects males after 15 years of age. There is difficulty in seeing in dim light with a person suffering from this disease and this is a progressive disease. After sunset there is decreased illumination, so patients suffering from this disease have a difficulty in moving around. 27. DW-Dr. Sanjeet Chowdhary has stated that in December, 1998 he was posted at Medical College, Jammu in Unit 2 of Eye Department. He had issued one certificate in favour of Sukhvir Singh S/o Jagdev Singh. The said person was suffering from Retinitis Pigmentosa and the same results in night-blindness. He proved the certificate. The certificate was marked as ExDW-1. He further stated that in this disease it becomes difficult for patient to see in dim light but when there is proper light, the patient can see properly. In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say that the patient of night-blindness can see how far, but he can see properly when there is proper light. On the basis of clinical examination, he had mentioned the particulars of the disease. This is wrong that he had issued the certificate on the asking of the accused. 28. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of the PWs-Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour, who have been cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is only the PW 2-Gursharan Kour who had seen the accused inflicting injuries upon her mother and PW-Gurmeet Singh has seen the accused running from his gate with Kirpan in his hand. 28. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of the PWs-Gurmeet Singh and Gursharan Kour, who have been cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It is only the PW 2-Gursharan Kour who had seen the accused inflicting injuries upon her mother and PW-Gurmeet Singh has seen the accused running from his gate with Kirpan in his hand. PWGursharan Kour stated that the accused pushed her and ran away but this part of the statement was not made by her in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC. She further has deposed that she ran after the accused even outside the gate and her brother also ran after the accused, but the accused ran away. When we read the statement of PW-Gurmeet Singh, it is found that he has stated that when the accused was running out, he was at the gate, but he did not try to catch the accused. Further, PW-Gurmeet Singh stated that when he went inside the room, his sister told him that the accused was inflicting injuries upon their mother. PWGursharan Kour has never made any statement that his brother came inside and she disclosed to him that the accused was inflicting injuries upon her mother. Rather, her positive statement is that she also went out and she along with her brother ran after the accused, but the accused managed to run away. These are the irreconcilable material contradictions in the statements of these two witnesses and they assume much significance in view of the statements made by PW-Gursharan Kour, PW-Manjeet Singh S/o Kirpal Singh (brother-in-law of PWGurmeet Singh) and PW-Jagjit Singh (brother-in-law of PW-Gurmeet Singh), as they all have stated that PW-Gurmeet Singh was also taken into custody by the Police in connection with the murder of his mother.This is the admitted fact that the occurrence took place in the night and the Investigating Officer has admitted that he has not shown any source of light on the place of occurrence, as such, it becomes difficult to identify the accused in the night. 29. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstance it creates doubt about the prosecution story and their statements cannot be considered without any corroboration by other evidences. 30. 29. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstance it creates doubt about the prosecution story and their statements cannot be considered without any corroboration by other evidences. 30. The prosecution also relied upon the fact that as per the FSL report ExPW-MA i.e. the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased matched with the hair of the accused. It is important to note here that the hair strands from the fist of the deceased were recovered on 29.04.2004 and they were sent to FSL on 10.05.2004, after getting them re-sealed on 08.05.2004. The accused was arrested on 02.05.2004 and his hair strands were taken on 11.05.2004 and resealed on 12.05.2004. There is no evidence on record that the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased were kept in safe custody, as neither the In-charge, Malkhana has been examined nor extract of the Malkhana Register has been placed on record. There is delay in resealing the hair strands recovered from the fist of the deceased and the delay is not properly explained. More so, ring used for resealing the articles seized on 29.04.2004 was kept on the supurdnama of the PW-Gurmeet Singh i.e. the son of the deceased, who was also arrested by the Police in connection to the offence of murder of the deceased-Jeet Kour. In view of above, this court finds that the learned trial court was correct in its approach of not placing reliance upon the FSL report. 31. The recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure of the respondent is also doubtful. PW-Gurmeet Singh has stated that on 02.05.2004 the accused was arrested and he made a disclosure statement and thereafter the recovery of the weapon of offence as well as blood stained clothes of the accused was effected. PW-Manjeet Singh S/o Kirpal Singh has also stated that on 02.05.2004, the accused was arrested and the weapon of offence and clothes of the accused were recovered from the plinth of the plot of the accused. He further stated that he signed on the seizure memo but when the seizure memo is examined, it is found that he is not a witness to the seizure memo. The prosecution has examined only the interested witnesses as the other witness to the disclosure statement i.e. PW-Inderjeet Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. He further stated that he signed on the seizure memo but when the seizure memo is examined, it is found that he is not a witness to the seizure memo. The prosecution has examined only the interested witnesses as the other witness to the disclosure statement i.e. PW-Inderjeet Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. There is no reason for non-examination of PW-Inderjeet Singh who is a witness to the disclosure statement of the accused and also to the recovery memo of the weapon of offence. PWGurmeet Singh and PW-Manjeet Singh have been cited as witnesses to almost all the seizure memos and despite availability of independent witnesses on spot, they were not associated with the investigation and only the interested witnesses were associated with the investigation. PW-Gurmeet Singh is an interested witness and needle of suspicion was also upon him as he was kept in custody by the Police in connection with the murder of Jeet Kour. So, merely on the basis of his statement, it cannot be safely held that the accused made any disclosure statement. In view of non-examination of the independent witnesses, it is not safe to rely upon the statements of interested witnesses i.e. PW-Gurmeet Singh and PW-Manjeet Singh as PW Gurmeet Singh was also arrested in the commission of murder of his mother. 32. More so, PW-Gopal Dass has stated that he took photographs on the place of recovery at 10.30 AM, whereas the memo of arrest reveals that the respondent was arrested on 12'O Clock on 02.05.2004. This is also a serious infirmity in the prosecution's case and the same cannot be ignored. 33. In the instant case, the accused/respondent has successfully proved that he was suffering from night-blindness, as DW-Dr. Sanjeet Chowdhary was examined by defence to prove that the respondent was suffering from night-blindness. The said certificate was prior to the occurrence and DW-Ashok Kumar Sharma has also stated that night-blindness is a degenerative disease and there is difficulty in seeing in dim light with the person suffering from this disease. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at night and there was no light on spot. It becomes difficult to believe that the respondent who was suffering from night-blindness can commit a murder. 34. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at night and there was no light on spot. It becomes difficult to believe that the respondent who was suffering from night-blindness can commit a murder. 34. We have gone through the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution case is full of infirmities and the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the major infirmities/material contradictions in the case projected by the prosecution and also in view of the defence projected by the accused, we do not find any reason, whatsoever, to disagree with the findings returned by the learned trial court. As such, the judgment of the learned trial court is upheld and this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, being found to be devoid of any merit. 35. Record of the trial court be sent back.